MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210987228 · doi:10.1136/oem-2021-epi.287

P-360 Is occupational exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons associated with prostate cancer risk? Results from PROtEuS, Montreal, Canada

2021· article· en· W3210987228 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine Barul, Marie‐Élise Parent

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdds ratioProstate cancerConfidence intervalLogistic regressionMedicineCancerEnvironmental chemistryOccupational exposureEnvironmental healthToxicologyInternal medicineChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have been shown to have endocrine-disrupting effects. Exposure could be carcinogenic to the prostate, a hormone-dependent organ. <h3>Objective</h3> To examine the association between lifetime occupational exposure to PAHs and prostate cancer risk. <h3>Methods</h3> Face-to-face interviews elicited detailed work histories for 1,937 histologically confirmed prostate cancer cases (524 aggressive) and 1,994 controls from Montreal, Canada. Industrial hygienists applied the hybrid expert assessment approach to assign concentration, frequency and certainty of exposure to benzo(a)pyrene, PAHs from different sources (wood, coal, petroleum, other sources) and PAHs from any source. Odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for age, ancestry, education, lifestyle and occupational factors, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. <h3>Results</h3> After restriction to probable and definite exposure, and application of a 5-year lag, no clear association was observed between exposure to PAHs and overall prostate cancer risk, although a weak positive dose-response pattern emerged for total duration of exposure to PAHs from wood (OR=1.06; 95%CI 0.95 to 1.18, per 5-year increment). Men in the upper tertile of cumulative exposure to these PAHs showed an elevated OR of 1.54 (95%CI 0.60 to 3.92), predominantly reflecting the non-aggressive form of the tumour (OR=1.74; OR=0.67 to 4.56). Nevertheless, exposure to PAHs from wood occurring at least 10 years before the index date was associated with some elevated risks of high-grade tumours (OR=1.54, 95%CI 0.70–3.39). Similar results were found in sensitivity analyses, including those restricted to controls recently screened for prostate cancer or in those prioritizing the Gleason score ascertained from prostatectomy over that from biopsy. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Only a handful of small studies have used detailed exposure assessment protocols to study the role of PAHs in prostate cancer risk. Our findings provide some limited evidence that exposure to PAHs from wood increases the risk of prostate cancer.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoster presentationsSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207